Hey GOP-MAGA Pre-Midterm National Elections Convention in Dallas, TX, Your Vote Buying Scheme Is Federally Illegal and a Federal Felony Crime

Hey GOP-MAGA Pre-Midterm National Elections Convention in Dallas, TX, Your Vote Buying Scheme Is Federally Illegal and a Federal Felony Crime

Vote buying is federally illegal and a federal felony crime. Even the interpersonal or public propositioning of others to buy their votes is an act of bribery and a bribery offer whether or not it is accepted by the subject of the bribe offer, or bribe. A promise to provide money or a money's-worth benefit or gratuity in exchange for a vote or votes is bribery and the promise to punish a voter as a consequence for rejecting a bribe or not complying with a request or demand to vote a particular way or for a particular political candidate is an extortionist threat and is extortion. By law, Trump cannot buy votes or offer to buy votes, nor, in any case, appropriate and allocate government funding (exclusive constitutional federal government authorities of the bicameral US Congress to do so, albeit illegally for this purpose). His promise to pay every US household, or voting-age member thereof, $5,000.00 if GOP majorities are voted into office in both houses, the House of Representatives and Senate, of the US Congress, is vote-my-way or the way-I-say voter bait.

Trump is an in-your-face, out-of-control lawbreaker, a brazen and unbridled scofflaw, who is accorded impunity for his lawbreaking by his sycophantic and groveling Department of Justice attorney general, director of the FBI and GOP-MAGA majority memberships of both houses of the US Congress and their leaders, and very often by the like GOP majority membership of the US Supreme Court. To them, our society is not that of the equal justice under the law of our Constitutional Bill-of-Rights Republic government of, by and for the people. Their majorities in the US Congress must be voted out of elective office as the derelict first-among-equals and ultimate lawmaking and law-enforcing national leaders come midterm elections day of Tuesday, November 3, 2026.

His offer, or newly termed "pledge," of $5,000.00 is voter bait, like chum (bait) for hungry sharks, and his promise during his 2024 presidential campaign to lower grocery and oil (fuel) prices, etc., and end US foreign wars [of aggression], and to replace Obamacare with better mass medical insurance ("...we have or are working on concepts," but, in fact, with less and nothing). Trump is a notorious BS talker. It is an illegal vote-buying promise and bribe.

Also:

The previous Trump-bandied political bait, in his second term as US president, of a $5,000.00 public dividend, among others, has been a blown-in-the-wind nothing to nowhere

Click to read a current retrospective news article:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/politics/articles/5-000-every-american-trumps-132430933.html

And check out an alternative, legal, moral and equitable $5,000.00-per-capita dividend check in celebration of the 250th anniversary of the Constitutional Bill-of-Rights Republic of the of, by and for the people nation of the USA proposed by classical Republican US Congressman Thomas Massie, TN, that would be issued and expectedly received by all adult US citizens before the midterm national elections of Tuesday, 11-03-2026:

Thomas Massie

@RepThomasMassie

Congress has a few more days in session before the election. I should do a discharge petition to give out $5,000 checks before the election. I wonder how many republicans would sign it.

5:04 AM · Sep 10, 2026

·

287.6K Views 

The Law:

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title18-section597&num=0&edition=prelim

18 USC 597: Expenditures to influence voting
Text contains those laws in effect on September 9, 2026
From Title 18-CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I-CRIMES
CHAPTER 29-ELECTIONS AND POLITICAL ACTIVITIES
Jump To:
Source Credit
Miscellaneous
Amendments
§597. Expenditures to influence voting
Whoever makes or offers to make an expenditure to any person, either to vote or withhold his vote, or to vote for or against any candidate; and

Whoever solicits, accepts, or receives any such expenditure in consideration of his vote or the withholding of his vote-

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if the violation was willful, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 721 ; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, §330016(1)(H), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147 ; Pub. L. 104–294, title VI, §601(a)(12), Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3498 .)

Historical and Revision Notes
Based on sections 250, 252, of title 2, U.S.C., 1940 ed., The Congress (Feb. 28, 1925, ch. 368, title III, §§311, 314, 43 Stat. 1073 , 1074).

This section consolidates the provisions of sections 250 and 252 of title 2, U.S.C., 1940 ed., The Congress.

Reference to persons causing or procuring was omitted as unnecessary in view of definition of "principal" in section 2 of this title.

The punishment provisions of section 252 of title 2, U.S.C., 1940 ed., The Congress, were incorporated at end of section upon authority of reference in such section making them applicable to this section.

Words "or both" were added to conform to the almost universal formula of the punishment provisions of this title.

Changes were made in phraseology.

Editorial Notes
Amendments
1996-Pub. L. 104–294 substituted "shall be fined under this title" for "shall be fined not more than $10,000" in last par.

1994-Pub. L. 103–322 substituted "shall be fined under this title" for "shall be fined not more than $1,000" in last par.

The Primary Purpose of the Trump GOP-MAGA Pre-Midterm National Elections Convention

The Primary Purpose of the Trump GOP-MAGA Pre-Midterm National Elections Convention

Folks, the primary purpose of Trump's GOP-MAGA midterm elections convention, historically a first-time such event, was to announce and make, with mass news-media broadcast coverage, fanfare and amplification, his $5,000.00 per capita adult bribe to the electorate in exchange for a majority of votes electing Republican majorities to both houses of the US Congress, the House of Representatives and Senate, on midterm national elections day of Tuesday, 11-03-2026, with him and his political strategists venturing to upsurge Trump's and the GOP's dismal popularity and political poll ratings, giving them a post-convention partisan-politics bounce and momentum, as of immediately following the announcement and convention, and a hopeful, for them, winning and main issue to campaign on for the virtually two months remaining before the midterm elections. However, read the law concerning this offer.

Trump's offer itself is illegal. Any offer, be it a promise, pledge or anything else, of payment of any kind in exchange for a vote or votes or to influence either is a federal felony crime, by federal statute:
https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title18-section597&num=0&edition=prelim
18 USC 597: Expenditures to influence voting.

Moreover, Article 1 of the US Constitution assigns exclusive authority to the bicameral US Congress to appropriate and allocate federal funding and spending.

Also:

The previous Trump-bandied political bait, in his second term as US president, of a $5,000.00 public dividend, among others, has been a blown-in-the-wind nothing to nowhere

Click to read a current retrospective news article:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/politics/articles/5-000-every-american-trumps-132430933.html

And check out an alternative, legal, moral and equitable $5,000.00-per-capita dividend check in celebration of the 250th anniversary of the Constitutional Bill-of-Rights Republic of the of, by and for the people nation of the USA proposed by classical Republican US Congressman Thomas Massie, TN, that would be issued and expectedly received by all adult US citizens before the midterm national elections of Tuesday, 11-03-2026:

Thomas Massie

@RepThomasMassie

Congress has a few more days in session before the election. I should do a discharge petition to give out $5,000 checks before the election. I wonder how many republicans would sign it.

5:04 AM · Sep 10, 2026

·

287.6K Views 

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas Exhibits Himself Morever in His Own Publicly Stated Words -- in Opposition to the US Supreme Court's Firm Majority Ruling in Acknowledgement and Affirmation of the US Constitution's Explicitly Worded and Prescribed Birthright USA Citizenship Law -- To Be Unsuitable for Membership in the US Judiciary System Entirely

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas Exhibits Himself Morever in His Own Publicly Stated Words -- in Opposition to the US Supreme Court's Firm Majority Ruling in Acknowledgement and Affirmation of the US Constitution's Explicitly Worded and Prescribed  Birthright USA Citizenship Law -- To Be Unsuitable for Membership in the US Judiciary System Entirely

I read a news article on the morning of 06-30-2026 quoting Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas as saying to the effect that the Supreme Court's 6 to 3 ruling upholding birthright citizenship was wrong because it devalues [US] citizenship, online click-on links, https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/5947513-birthright-citizenship-clarence-thomas-dissent/ , https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/us-politics/supreme-court-14th-amendment-birthright-citizenship-clarence-thomas-b3006092.html  . The Supreme Court's role, duty and mission is to cite and uphold federal constitutional law first and foremost and not make value judgments about it and rulings that contradict, deviate from or amend it. Birthright citizenship is unambiguously and clearly stated and prescribed in the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution, which is the supreme law of the USA. The courts do not have any legislative authority and it is unlawful and legally illegitimate for any court of the USA to render a judicial ruling modifying, overruling or contravening in whole or part any law of the US Constitution.  Arguments, justifications or tactics to do such things are straightforwardly and plainly dishonest and manipulative judicial guile, sophistry and finagling to circumvent, reconstruct and re-write differently the already explicated textual law as it is stated in writing in its own words or language, though sometimes complexly in related but separated parts of the US Constitution truly requiring judicial review and reconciliation. The personal views and sentiments of the justices of the courts have no legitimate applicability in their judicial rulings, aka their judicial decisions. He needs to exit the judiciary, as do any judges of the courts who proffer judgments based on their or others' rationale, testimony or evidence that is extraneous, external or contradictory to the textually stated law.  The US Constitution and its laws can only be changed by the amendment process of the US Constitution prescribed by and in the US Constitution. The bicameral US Congress must adhere to this process in order to make a change in the US Constitution and cannot legally make a congressional statutory law to make a change to it, https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artV-1/ALDE_00000507/?s__cf_chl_f_tk=DoMb.8Z48.zcmowipi6AM_RhfryaDq8_OeZPnB6M2Ic-1782995610-1.0.1.1-DUGMIeaBaIdh7026Eg9RZ4VZa50ah5_1FNRhtBZwxX4.

A theoretical judicial ruling holding that it is in compliance with the first law of the First Amendment of the US Constitution for there to be government-mandated or designated tax support of Christian religions or a certain Christian religion or set of them or of any religion or all religions, and for government mandating, authorizing or affirmatively sanctioning their proselytizing and pressuring for the imposition of their beliefs, practices and rituals, etc., in government institutions and on government facilities or premises, or on all or any part of US society, as well as for population submission to these, or for the legislated designation of a particular religion or set of religions as the official religion of the USA, based on the argument and rationale, extraneous and irrelevant to the textual language of that amendment, that such is/are US Constitutionally legal because the majority of the founders of the USA and framers of the US Constitution were Christians, would be in contradiction to and in violation of that first law of the First Amendment, and its language, which states "Congress (by prescription of the US Constitution, the exclusive legislative, law-making branch of the federal government) shall make no law respecting 'an' establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." [civilian and personal, voluntarily collective or individual, free exercise of religion (that is not selected, supported, promoted, sponsored, encouraged, compelled or legislated or instituted or institutionalized by government), or freedom from religion, that does not infringe on others' religions or lack of religion or their other equal-protection-of-the-law citizenship rights and whatever their other legal rights], which semantically and logically equates to the separation of church and state or the separation of religion, and religiosity, and state and from the state, https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-1/ , as did, to whom it may concern, the dictum of Christianity's founder Jesus in his words to the effect of "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and render unto God what is God's." -- Y'all got that, ya money-and-power greedy and gluttonous and money-and-power grubbing, tax-shirking and parasitizing rich folks and fake, liar and bigoted religious preachers and shuckster leaders?

 

See below the excerpt of the US Constitutional right-of-US-citizenship-by-birth law of, prescribed in, the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution:

 

Fourteenth Amendment  Equal Protection and Other Rights

• • Amdt14.1 Overview of Fourteenth Amendment, Equal Protection and Rights of Citizens
  • Amdt14.2 State Action Doctrine

  Section 1 Rights

  All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Fourteenth Amendment | Browse | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

All persons born in the USA and its territories, as well as those legally or illegally visiting or residing in the USA or its territories, are subject to its jurisdiction.  However, government officials, diplomatic staff and military and foreign-service personnel of foreign nations who are in the USA are under the direct jurisdictional authority of their home governments and have diplomatic immunity, with limited restrictions, set by treaties between nations and international law, and, so, their children who are born in the USA are not subject in main to the jurisdiction of the USA and are not birthright citizens of the USA, nor are the children born in the USA of foreign persons operating in the USA as unofficial or undeclared agents or activists in behalf of designated, by the US federal government, alien enemies, or their interests, against or of the USA.  Similarly, the children born abroad of US officials, diplomatic staff and armed forces and other foreign-service personnel, on assignment or duty on behalf of the government of the USA in foreign nations or territories, like their US government-service parents, are subject to the full jurisdiction of the federal government of the USA and are accorded automatic USA birthright citizenship.